People v. Padilla CA2/8

Filed 2/26/16 P. v. Padilla CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B265160

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA033618) v.

JOSE RAMON PADILLA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Olivia Rosales, Judge. Reversed.

Jackie Lacey, Los Angeles County District Attorney, Steven I. Katz and Felicia N. Shu, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Gloria C. Cohen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.

*********

In 1996, defendant Jose Ramon Padilla pled guilty to one count of receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a).) In 2014, defendant filed a motion to vacate his plea and petition for writ of error coram nobis. His pleadings sought to set aside his 1996 plea on the grounds the trial court’s “conditional language” in its advisement of the immigration consequences of the plea did not conform with the requirements of section 1016.5, subdivision (a), and that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise defendant of the immigration consequences of his plea. Defendant later filed an amended motion, arguing additional constitutional grounds to withdraw his plea. The trial court granted the motion, and the People have appealed. Because the advisement given to defendant complied with section Penal Code 1016.5, subdivision (a), and because defendant failed to introduce any evidence that he would not have entered the plea if he had been “properly advised,” we find the trial court abused its discretion in vacating the judgment and allowing defendant to withdraw his plea. The other grounds for defendant’s motion provided no legal or factual basis for the relief granted by the trial court. We therefore reverse the order below. FACTS On February 14, 1996, defendant pled guilty to receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a). According to the probation report, defendant had been paid $35,000 to warehouse merchandise which had been carjacked from various Southern California cargo trucks. At the time defendant entered his plea, he was a legal resident of the United States. He had come to the United States at the age of 14 from Honduras. At the plea hearing, defendant was represented by privately retained counsel. Before he entered his plea, the prosecutor confirmed on the record that defendant had signed and initialed the “Guilty Plea in Superior Court” form that was in common use at that time. Defendant wrote his initials next to the portions of the form that provided: “I understand that if I am not a citizen of the United States, the conviction for the offense charged may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.” In